What ever happened to the bank shot? Great article... <div class="quote_poster">Quoting :</div><div class="quote_post">It will soon follow the path of short basketball shorts, underhanded free throws and three shots to make two from the line. With only Tim Duncan among today's NBA players intentionally aiming for the white square above the rim on a consistent basis, the bank shot is on the verge of extinction. What happened to such a practical and effective shot? How did it go from a weapon that former UCLA Hall of Fame coach John Wooden, who won the last of his 10 NCAA titles in 1975, mandated for his players on the fast break inside 15 feet to nothing more than a trick shot in H-O-R-S-E? </div> Full Story
The bank shot is an overated shot. Hopefully it dies with the rest of Wooden garbage preaching. I consider myself a good shooter. And the bank shot is more difficult. This ******** about it have a bigger spot to bank in is stupid. The shot is good for layup really. And 1 type of plays. Basically if you're good enough to make a bank shot. Then you're good enough to make straight up swish. I read the article a little. And it uses Duncan a key example for using the bank shot. Well no ****. the guy shot is flat as hell. Heck this is Tim Duncan were talking about. The man averages 50 percent fromt the free throw line every other year. People if you a flat, hard shot like Duncan. Than use the the board. But if you can flat out shoot. Have a nice release, soft high arch there is no need for that board. You can fit 2 basketballs in one rim. I don't know how many inches that is but it sure is hell a bigger sweet spot than the backboard. ---------- <font color="Red"><font size="1">Don't double post mate, you can add more to your posts by clicking the "Edit" button - KJ</font></font>
I read the article a little. And it uses Duncan a key example for using the bank shot. Well no ****. the guy shot is flat as hell. Heck this is Tim Duncan were talking about. The man averages 50 percent fromt the free throw line every other year. People if you a flat, hard shot like Duncan. Than use the the board. But if you can flat out shoot. Have a nice release, soft high arch there is no need for that board. You can fit 2 basketballs in one rim. I don't know how many inches that is but it sure is hell a bigger sweet spot than the backboard.
Was Scottie Pippen's shot flat? Look at some footage of the old Bulls teams when Scottie would pull up on the wing and hit the bank from 15 consistently. No, you're obviously not going to use the bank shot very often, but the point of the article was that the shot is hardly ever used anymore - when it should be. If you ever learned anything about basketball, I'm sure that taught you about the concept of angles. When playing in the low post area extended to about 15 feet, a bank shot makes for a much higher percentage shot opportunity. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The bank shot is an overated shot. Hopefully it dies with the rest of Wooden garbage preaching. I consider myself a good shooter. And the bank shot is more difficult. This ******** about it have a bigger spot to bank in is stupid. The shot is good for layup really. And 1 type of plays. </div> "Wooden garbage" huh? okay. I have to really take extreme exception to this. The most successful coach in college basketball history preached garbage. Well, must have been some pretty damn good garbage because his players used it to win 88 straight games. 10 titles in a 12 year span. An .804 winning percentage in 27 seasons. Garbage. I guess you consider fundamentals garbage? I had the opportunity when I was young to attend John Wooden's final summer basketball camp. I went in thinking I knew it all. When I left, I realized that I had learned more in those 5 days than I had in the previous 6 years I had been playing. The skills I learned in that camp improved my game tenfold. I learned how to play the angles of the game, positioning, cutting, screening, boxing out, squaring for shots. These are skills that very few of today's players on any level posses. You would be surprised how effective it is when you have a fundamentally sound game. So if you want to call it garbage, that's your opinion. An opinion you share with the vast minority of true basketball fans. You can disagree with the fact that the bank is a useful shot. But go and ask a few coaches their opinion on the matter, it's going to be hard to find that doesn't advocate the bank. It's very useful when utilized from certain angles and in the proper context of the game. That's just the truth. It doesn't matter how good a shooter you are, I can drain shots from anywhere on the court, but I still use the backboard when the situation calls for it. Try it, it's extremely effective and all it takes is a little practice to realize it.
Today's shooter in the NBA especially cannot shoot. And the ones that can. Like the small white guys like the great Steve Kerr are only a threat at the 3 point line. Once inside the 3 point line the black smites there weak ****. Really the only time a bank shot comes to mind to me is when I'm at a 45 Degree angle. Its really something thats been taught to me and wish it wasn't. Its a burden on my shot. And about the overated wooden. If you think Wooden is a genius. Then you must also think Bill Russel was a good basketball player. These people are just pioneers. They were just the first. But certainly not the best. 10 championships in 12 years? Credit that to Lou Alcindor and Bill Walton. Legitimate 7 footers beating up on college chumps. I would hope they would win.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chump:</div><div class="quote_post">Once inside the 3 point line the black smites there weak ****. </div> I didn't understand what you're trying to say- type more clearly.
I use the bank, it's a matter of preference and the fact that most backboards are different except in the NBA I guess.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Once inside the 3 point line the black smites there weak ****. </div> Yeah, what does that mean? Most of today's white players can't play inside the three point line? Whatever it means, it sounds like an inherently racist statement to me. Are you referring to the fact that there are not as many white players that can break ankles and get to the basket for a reverse power-slam? Well, yeah, you're very right. Especially not guys like Steve Kerr. Why should he even try? Steve Kerr going to the basket would not be smart for him, that wasn't his game. For the same reason Shaq doesn't shoot threes, Kerr didn't play in the post. He was valuable to his team as a three point threat, not as a threat to bring down the backboard. By the way, unless you can do it yourself, don't knock someone else for not being capable. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">And about the overated wooden. If you think Wooden is a genius. Then you must also think Bill Russel was a good basketball player. These people are just pioneers. They were just the first. But certainly not the best. 10 championships in 12 years? Credit that to Lou Alcindor and Bill Walton. Legitimate 7 footers beating up on college chumps. I would hope they would win.</div> As a matter of fact I do, and I do. Just pioneers? So by this you mean that John Wooden coached and Bill Russell played before there was any real competition, right? Check the books: there were some other decent coaches and teams back then: Adolph Rupp (Kentucky), Dean Smith (UNC), Norm Sloan (NC ST.), Bob Knight (Indiana), Guy Lewis (Houston), Don Haskins (Western Texas). Of course having Alcindor and Walton were important keys to winning. But then given your reasoning, why then didn't Shaq and Stanley Roberts win a championship at LSU? Why didn't Wilt win at Kansas? If you think John Wooden's coaching style wasn't a huge contributing factor in the success of those UCLA teams, then you don't have any grasp of the history of this game. Also, please remember that Alcindor, as well as Walton only played THREE seasons each on the varsity teams at UCLA. Freshman played their first year on the JV. That means that for the remaining seasons in which these players were not available to the varsity squad, Wooden's teams still somehow managed to keep hanging banners. Coincidence I guess. As for the level of competition, ask Kareem about Elvin Hayes, Spencer Haywood, Dan Issel and Bob Lanier. Despite the fact that you weren't there to see it, you have to appreciate the level of competition that existed in college basketball in those years. How can you say Bill Russell wasn't a great player? Not only was he a pioneer, he was an intelligent, dominant player in college and throughout his NBA career. Also keep in mind that although Russell's opponents may not have been as big as say Shaq's opponents are, neither was Russell as strong and muscularly developed as today's big men. To say Russell was not even a good player is such an asinine comment that I don't think I even need to respond any further. But if you'd like to brush up click on this link: http://www.hoophall.com/halloffamers/RussellW.htm you also might want to go back to the original article that I posted and read the remainder of it.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chump:</div><div class="quote_post">Today's shooter in the NBA especially cannot shoot. And the ones that can. Like the small white guys like the great Steve Kerr are only a threat at the 3 point line. Once inside the 3 point line the black smites there weak ****. </div> I feel there's no need to answer your blatantly racist comments.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting kobeonfire:</div><div class="quote_post">I feel there's no need to answer your blatantly racist comments.</div> Don't confuse fact with racism. Its not racist, its just the truth. White people unless they are 6'10" or bigger have no place inside the 3 point line. People there is a reason the league is dominated by blacks. I believe the league is like some crazy stat of being 87% black. That is fact. And it also tells you something. White people, physically have not been able to keep up with the game of basketball at the highest level. Why? I have no clue. But when I see a league dominated by only one race. It leads me to believe that white people are only good for shooting. And unfortunately for these white people they are not atheltic enough to be a threat within the 3 point line. And if they are not able to compete within the 3 point line there is no possibility for a bank shot. Even the egotisitical wooden is not foolish enougth to teach a 3 point bankshot. That would be simply stupid. Now I'm going to tell you why the bank shot is dead is the most clear way possible. The bank shot is dead because white players in this game have simply been passed up.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chump:</div><div class="quote_post">Don't confuse fact with racism. Its not racist, its just the truth. White people unless they are 6'10" or bigger have no place inside the 3 point line. People there is a reason the league is dominated by blacks. I believe the league is like some crazy stat of being 87% black. That is fact. And it also tells you something. White people, physically have not been able to keep up with the game of basketball at the highest level. Now I'm going to tell you why the bank shot is dead is the most clear way possible. The bank shot is dead because white players in this game have simply been passed up.</div><font color="Blue">If you continue to turn this into a race thread, I will be forced to lock it. This is a good thread, keep it to basketball. </font>
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting OgShowtime:</div><div class="quote_post"> How can you say Bill Russell wasn't a great player? Not only was he a pioneer, he was an intelligent, dominant player in college and throughout his NBA career. Also keep in mind that although Russell's opponents may not have been as big as say Shaq's opponents are, neither was Russell as strong and muscularly developed as today's big men. To say Russell was not even a good player is such an asinine comment that I don't think I even need to respond any further. But if you'd like to brush up click on this link: http://www.hoophall.com/halloffamers/RussellW.htm you also might want to go back to the original article that I posted and read the remainder of it.</div> Bill Russel only opponent was Wilt. And Wilt destroyed him. Unfortunately for Wilt the game was monopolized at the time by the Celtics. I'm telling you send Tony Battie or Jamal Magloire back in time and these guys would be considered the best basketball player of all time as well. Big superior athletic black men beating up on small, slow white players is nothing to be proud of. Its simply taking candy from a baby. People if you want to know what it like be a winner like Bill Russel. Just get a game going with 12 years old and you being a 25 year old man. Playing on a 9 foot rim. Then you will be as great winner like bill russel. Bill Russel is just a victim of his time. You just know Bill Russel would be nothing in the league today.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Rudeezy:</div><div class="quote_post"><font color="Blue">If you continue to turn this into a race thread, I will be forced to lock it. This is a good thread, keep it to basketball. </font></div> Its a good thread because I made it one. This is clearly a case of mod who is really not needed. Things are under control.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Bill Russel only opponent was Wilt. And Wilt destroyed him. Unfortunately for Wilt the game was monopolized at the time by the Celtics. I'm telling you send Tony Battie or Jamal Magloire back in time and these guys would be considered the best basketball player of all time as well. Big superior athletic black men beating up on small, slow white players is nothing to be proud of. Its simply taking candy from a baby. People if you want to know what it like be a winner like Bill Russel. Just get a game going with 12 years old and you being a 25 year old man. Playing on a 9 foot rim. Then you will be as great winner like bill russel. Bill Russel is just a victim of his time. You just know Bill Russel would be nothing in the league today.</div> Look, I really don't want to go back and forth with you on this issue any longer. It's just stupid. I'm not trying to change your opinions, I'm simply trying to inform you about the other side of your arguement and you just refuse to be receptive. Apparently, you are the be-all, end-all source when it comes to anything pertaining to basketball. So why should anyone bother? Fine. You are right. In your opinion: John Wooden preached nonsense, Bill Russell sucked and white people are worthless basketball players unless outside the 3-point line. You said so, therefore it must be true. Believe whatever you'd like to and make as many ridiculous statements as possible. As for you making this a good thread - you making uninformed, inflammatory comments didn't make this thread better - it killed it's purpose. You've made your points and turned this into a Springer-esque display of ignorance. If you have no further thoughts on the article or it's premise, please take the remainder of your opinions to another thread. I'm done with this.
